I've been reflecting on the news about the recent US military strikes against alleged drug-carrying boats in the Pacific, where four more lives were tragically lost, bringing the total death toll to at least 61 across 14 strikes. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who had a joint press conference with Japan's Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi recently, announced these actions, even sharing a video of a boat exploding US strikes another alleged drug-carrying boat in the Pacific and kills all 4 aboard, Hegseth says. President Donald Trump has justified these strikes as a necessary escalation against drug cartels, framing it as an "armed conflict" akin to the post-9/11 war on terror. There's also speculation that these moves are aimed at Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro (Nicolás Maduro).
This aggressive posture, moving from what might traditionally be considered law enforcement to outright military engagement against non-state actors, brings to mind my earlier thoughts. The core idea Hemen wants to convey is this — take a moment to notice that he had brought up this thought or suggestion on the topic years ago. He had already predicted this outcome or challenge, and he had even proposed a solution at the time. Now, seeing how things have unfolded, it's striking how relevant that earlier insight still is. Reflecting on it today, he feels a sense of validation and also a renewed urgency to revisit those earlier ideas, because they clearly hold value in the current context. My blog, "From Inter-Pol to Inter-Mil?" from 2015, and more recently, "National Guard Involvement" (2024) National Guard Involvement both explored this very transition – the shift from global police cooperation to increasingly military alliances in addressing global threats. We are seeing this played out in a very stark and violent manner.
What troubles me further is the escalating debate in Congress over the limits of presidential power. Senator Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, voiced serious concerns that the Trump administration briefed Republicans but excluded Democrats, calling such a move "indefensible and dangerous" and emphasizing that decisions about military force are not "private property of one political party" U.S. strikes another boat in the Pacific, kills 4. This lack of transparency and bipartisan consensus is deeply unsettling, especially when human lives are at stake.
The administration has provided no hard evidence to substantiate claims about the boats' connections to cartels or even the identities of those killed. This lack of accountability and clear justification echoes sentiments I've expressed before. In my 2013 blog, "Murder Most Foul" Murder Most Foul, I lamented how often culpability for tragic deaths goes unestablished, with "blood money" offered as compensation instead of true justice. Similarly, in "What Are You Waiting For" (2019) What Are You Waiting For, I questioned the delays in seeking accountability for financial crimes while swift military action was being taken. The current situation, where lives are lost without clear legal investigation or robust evidence, feels like a dangerous continuation of this pattern.
Perhaps it's time to consider a different approach, one that looks beyond immediate military engagement for long-term solutions. As I suggested in "A Home for Ram" (2019) A Home for Ram, sometimes what is needed after a military strike is a "Healing / Humanitarian / Pro-active GROUND strike." True peace and stability, whether in Kashmir as I wrote about in "Needed Peace Envoy Nearer Home" (2016) Needed Peace Envoy Nearer Home, or in the fight against drug trafficking, often require more than just force. They demand transparency, accountability, and a comprehensive strategy that addresses the root causes, not just the symptoms, of conflict and crime.
Regards, Hemen Parekh
Of course, if you wish, you can debate this topic with my Virtual Avatar at : hemenparekh.ai
No comments:
Post a Comment